“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
Well said Dubya.[/quote]
I have been a vocal critic of W’s communication skills. I don’t care if he mangles syllables. I do care very much that he doesn’t understand that HE HAS TO BATTER THE THICK-HEADED MORONS REPEATEDLY TO GET ANYTHING THROUGH.
See renny.
Now, renny is asserting that W had no exit strategy in Iraq. In his mind, he thinks, “I got him. What a hypocrite. He’ll say anything to get elected.”
What is sad, is that there are apparently quite a few uneducated numbskulls who believe this.
That is the rub, George hasn’t been able to muster enough public support because he doesn’t understand that guys like me (who remember things the first time) are the minority. Guys like renny, who need a TON OF REPETITION are the norm.
I did a cursory search of George W. Bush speeches.
Here are a few of many quotes. I’ve chosen one date per year for the first several years of the War in Iraq.
April 8th, 2003
June 8, 2004
March 29th, 2005
August 21st, 2006
Now, Zap. Let me define a troll. A troll is someone who comes on here and makes statements that he/she isn’t willing to defend. A troll doesn’t try to educate or isn’t willing to learn something new.
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
Well said Dubya.
I have been a vocal critic of W’s communication skills. I don’t care if he mangles syllables. I do care very much that he doesn’t understand that HE HAS TO BATTER THE THICK-HEADED MORONS REPEATEDLY TO GET ANYTHING THROUGH.
See renny.
Now, renny is asserting that W had no exit strategy in Iraq. In his mind, he thinks, “I got him. What a hypocrite. He’ll say anything to get elected.”
[/quote]
Bah, my gut feeling was to go with the second quote, I just liked the sound of the first one
Sorry if I need to hear things a couple of times, I am not gifted with a miraculous memory like you are, and in all fairness, anything GWB says has to be heard a few times, cos of the whole communication skills thing.
That is actually a hell of a read, haven’t been able to pour over it in excruciating detail, but I plan to once I get some time. Its one of those things that requires some analysis.
All those quotes are very fine examples of our final goal in Iraq. Unfortunately I disagree with the President in his assessment that a timetable will hamper our efforts in Iraq.
I will say that each quote is practically the same thing (the same paragraph is used in the june 8 '04 and mar 29 '05 quotes, I am going to assume that is the actual case here and that you didn’t mistype), I’ll have to read his speeches in their entirety to get a better feel for the context of each of those that you have included.
Man, it is getting to be that unless every post you make is a well-articulated 500 word argument that includes at least half a dozen factual and non-partisan sources you get crapped on. So I emphasised a weak quote, tough shit. Tear me a new one, fine by me. I have yet to hear a solid argument from you or anyone else that having a timetable from the start would have seriously hampered our efforts in Iraq.
And to say that I have not learnt anything is bullshit. The first thing that comes to my mind is that these forums have helped to changed my stance on global warming significantly.
But hey, I am a troll, so my opinion is worthless right?
What I am saying here is not that there is an easy solution.[/quote]
I agree, getting out when Bush’s term is up (or any other strictly date oriented goal) seems way too easy. It’s not just getting out of the Iraq apartment as soon as the lease is up.
If we leave and another 65,000 die in anything less than four years afterward and we could potentially have egg on our face for quite some time.
Hell, some members of this board blame us for Israel.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
If we leave and another 65,000 die in anything less than four years afterward and we could potentially have egg on our face for quite some time. [/quote]
First, your estimate isn’t entirely reprensative of reality. I say it’s a few times more than that. Secondly, more people ARE gonna die regardless of whether you stay or not. It’s just that it’s a lot harder to blame them on you if you’re outta there. Lastly, I know for a fact that more American troops will not die in Iraq if you withdraw. Last month only you, 104 US military died.
This is your fifth year there and you achieved nothing security-wise. What besides faith, is giving you the impression that it’s getting better?
Nobody’s blaming you. I personally blame it on a cerebral hemorrhage that struck a 12 April, 1945.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Hell, some members of this board blame us for Israel.[/quote]
Ok, I do not want to go here but we do not hold them to the same standards we hold the rest of the ME to. I don’t like hypothetical arguments but for arguments sake, lets say that Palestine was in Israel’s place and the shoe were on the other foot…?
Is the government that has planes and tanks and bombs still in the right with regard to the rag-tag bunch of refugees–would the US still wag its finger in Israel’s face for terroristic behavior?
I cannot logically blame the US for Israel but I am disappointed that the US doesn’t at least act fairly toward Palestine–they have no way for their voice to be heard and the actions of Hamas has ruined their reputation.
First, your estimate isn’t entirely reprensative of reality. I say it’s a few times more than that.[/quote]
I was using LIFTICVS’ estimate. I’ve read as low as 35,000 and as high as 650,000. The Iraqi gov’t says 100,000. I was speaking more in algorithms any way (civilian deaths/day with American forces vs. civilian deaths/day without).
9/11 was retribution for our occupation of?
The question is not are additional people gonna die, the question is it going to be better or worse without us. If it’s worse I have a hard time believing the world wouldn’t blame us for fucking up the ME at every turn.
[quote]Lastly, I know for a fact that more American troops will not die in Iraq if you withdraw. Last month only you, 104 US military died.
This is your fifth year there and you achieved nothing security-wise. What besides faith, is giving you the impression that it’s getting better?[/quote]
As I said to LIFTICVS, if we are failing so astoundingly, it should be easy to set some qualifying metrics as to the failure and enforce them.
Both American deaths and American injuries have dropped since 2004. It’s not “we’re winning!” rock-solid drops, but it’s as convincing as any data/predictions I’ve seen of global warming.
So US leaves, Iran openly destabilizes Iraq, and Israel declares war, vaporizes Syria, Iran, and Lebanon. Greece, Turkey, and parts of the EU have to start handing out potassium iodide.
Nobody would blame the US?
How about something more “trivial” like terrorists congregating in Iraq manage an assassination or orchestrate another 7/7?
We’ve been blamed for Saddam and Bin Laden. Thinking it will stop because we evacuate Iraq is disingenuous, especially from you.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
lucasa wrote:
I’ve said this since the start. If the Democrats and other nay-sayers could lay out the metrics of failure, they would carry much more weight when they say we need to leave.
How about the fact that we went to war based on lies and overthrew a government that kept people from killing each other based on their religion and allowed a terrorist foothold into a country that it did not previously have. Is that a FAILURE?
No its not a failure, we also set up a new Government, overthrew a dictator, and helping build up Iraqs army so they can fight these terrorists.(it will be good to have another ally in that region).
Or the fact that there never was an exit strategy because we never planned to exit? Or the fact that we weren’t intelligent enough to know the difference between Shia and Sunni Muslims before we entered Baghdad? Or the fact that we have lost all credibility with any part of the world that matters? Or the fact that more than half a million people have lost their lives in the name of “liberation”?
We are planning on leaving just because are plans don’t have a date does not mean there is no exit plan, are exit plan is to get there Government set up so it can protect itself and leave.(which we are doing it now).
Dems are just as much to blame for the failures (for agreeing to go to war) and for not holding the Bush administration to account.
There’s no reason to hold anyone accountable, did we go in there under some false info yes, but it in no way means its bad.
[/quote]
[quote]lucasa wrote:
9/11 was retribution for our occupation of? [/quote]
If we consider that Ben-Laden was behind it, I’d guess that it’s for backing the Saudi monarchy and arming Israel.
Of course, none of those is nowhere near sufficient an excuse for killing innocents.
You must have not been paying close attention. The world is already blaming you fucking up the ME. Seriously, do you think Iran would have accelerated their “civil” nuclear program if you didn’t invade Iraq? Do you think Iraq would be the mess it is today if you didn’t bomb the hell out of it four years ago?
Bottomline, you’re already taking the blame, and rightly so, might I add.
You guys didn’t bother keeping a body count of Iraqi casualties purposely to avoid falling in the same pitfall as Vietnam. You can’t expect people to support the use of violence indefinitely based on nothing more than words from the leaders. Might have worked when faith (as in religion) was still around. But there’s no way that’s gonna happen in these civilized times.
I shall remind you that you were fighting the army as well back then and that you had few to no bases on the ground. Now, the soldiers spend more time in the highly secured bases and go out mostly on patrols.
I got rid of my car not because of the global warming data but because of the principle of precaution. You could apply the same to the situation in Iraq. Until you have unquestionable evidence that your presence there is improving the situation, you should get out of there, You shouldn’t have been there in the first place anyway, so…
Forgive me for saying so, but this is an idiotic statement that I didn’t expect from someone like yourself. Why on earth would Iran destabilize a neighbouring country on purpose? They knows that the Shia majority will naturally side with them. And don’t give me the Iranian explosives BS. There’s no evidence for that and the majority of the bombings is done by the Sunnis (remember? Al-Qaeda). The Shi’ites were - relatively - happy that their oppressor was ousted. Just don’t expect them to side with you because of the 2003 invasion. Most of them can remember the support the US gave Saddam back in the days and making them forget that won’t be easy.
Maybe if you frowned upon them to get rid of their nukes and stopped sending them weapons, they wouldn’t be able to blow up the world? Just a guess…
Terrorists don’t need to congregate. The Al-Qaeda beast has been unleashed and there’s no way to put the genie back in the bottle besides acting on the roots of it. The Pakis behind 7/7 didn’t need to congregate anymore than the Moroccans of 5/16. Wake up! It’s the 21st century. Everybody has broadband and cell phones. How hard is it to make a bomb anyway?
Wait a minute, I never said terrorism will stop if you get out of Iraq. What I’m sure about is that they can’t use their main rallying cause to recruit people. So all I can guarantee is that their ranks will shrink.
If we consider that Ben-Laden was behind it, I’d guess that it’s for backing the Saudi monarchy and arming Israel.
Of course, none of those is nowhere near sufficient an excuse for killing innocents.[/quote]
So we were attacked for not occupying a country.
[quote]You must have not been paying close attention. The world is already blaming you fucking up the ME. Seriously, do you think Iran would have accelerated their “civil” nuclear program if you didn’t invade Iraq? Do you think Iraq would be the mess it is today if you didn’t bomb the hell out of it four years ago?
Bottomline, you’re already taking the blame, and rightly so, might I add.[/quote]
Bin Laden and co. blamed us for supporting Israel. Others, like yourself, blame us for everything we’ve done in the ME (or anywhere) for the past 30 yrs.
You’re not convincing me that our withdrawal from Iraq will change the world’s perception of us.
[i]In late July, for example, the major story out of Iraq was the killing of Saddam’s two sons, Uday and Qusay, and his grandson, Mustapha, in a raid on a house in the city of Mosul. But Western media missed a crucial aspect of the story.
Several reports of the sons’ deaths mentioned that some Iraqis celebrated the news in a traditional Iraqi way: firing guns into the air. What was missing in the coverage was that many Iraqis lost their lives in the celebrations. Al Mu’tamar newspaper, published by the Iraqi National Conference – the closest of American allies – quoted medical and security sources in Baghdad citing that 31 civilians were killed and 76 injured as a result of the revelry gunfire. No U.S. media reported such news.
This kind of reporting not only gives American readers and viewers an incomplete story, but also furthers the mistrust of American media that is becoming more and more pervasive worldwide.[/i]
How much reporting of civilian casualties would you be happy with? (No amount.) Even if the US recorded and reported it, would you believe it (No.) Which, in your opinion, is more important, fighting violent insurgents or counting the bodies and who’s responsible for them (I’m not saying they should be disregarded).
If only Saddam would’ve reported how many people he (or “he”) killed. If only the Ayatollah would report how many he killed. We would’ve known what needed to be done sooner.
Out of curiosity, would you happen to know the last time any army recorded/reported it’s own body count?
Wait, so the army fell, we control bases and are now running regular patrols? On top of that fewer American soldiers are dying?
You’re making a pretty good case for staying.
1.) NASA doesn’t have the computing power to determine how small a contribution to the GW cause you giving up your car was. Living in Sweden, you giving up your car wasn’t even the 20% of your carbon footprint that it would be, on average, here in America.
2.) That’s not how the precautionary principle works. We’re in Iraq, the action under question is withdrawal. The burden of proof lies with the one advocating the action and whether or not it will adversely (or more adversely) effect the public.
3.) The precautionary principle has it’s own inherent risks for outright acceptance. The fear of nuclear proliferation has lead countries to generate CO2 rather than use nuclear power. The same countries that removed sulfur compounds from their coal power plants aided the global warming phenomenon for fear of acid rain and damaging peoples’ health. Or, in this case, that pulling out of Iraq prematurely saves us only in terms of American Soldiers’ lives, in the short term.
Austrian rifles sold directly to the Iranian Gov’t, under the pretense of fighting a drug war, were found on the battlefield in Iraq. And we’re not talking like they have ‘Soviet Kalishnikovs and American rifles too’ sort of ambiguity. This couldn’t be more clear if they had found Mahmoud’s fingerprints all over them.
Saddam’s dead. Still not convincing me that we won’t be blamed for leaving Iraq.
They don’t definitively have nuclear capability, thanks for playing along with that presupposition. More importantly, they haven’t threatened to erase any countries from the pages of history recently. I would think someone like yourself could easily distinguish a nation with arms from an aggressive nation with arms.
I’m quite familiar with what it would take to pull off a terrorist act. Singular terrorist entities (Tim McVeigh, Ted Kakzinski, John Allen Muhammed) aren’t a threat to national security. They are a threat to civilians but one man is not going to hold a country hostage. Anything other than one man requires structure, organization, and funding. The more of any one of those three, the more interaction you require. If it were possible to conduct paperless, cashless, resourceless, warehouseless business with cell phones as the only overhead, American and world businesses would’ve jumped all over it.
I asked the last time you said this, is there anyone anywhere in any intelligence community that would put their name to this? Because I’ve heard plenty of “Paper Tiger” speeches to the contrary.
And as I said above, they apparently didn’t have enough trouble with recruiting prior to any one of the terrorist attacks that we’ve named. I’m sure the people of Indonesia and Egypt were surprised at the terrorists’ recruiting ability in light of their occupational forces.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
So we were attacked for not occupying a country. [/quote]
No. For supporting a regime that occupies a country and supporting a regime that tyrannizes its people.
There are other relationships than unconditional support and occupation between countries.
I believe the body count figures aren’t released because it has proven to alienate the public as demonstrated by the public opposition to the war in Vietnam. Many conflict zone keep record of the casualties on both sides. I know of the Western Sahara case.
But read on different perspectives of the pentagon’s body count.
[quote]Wait, so the army fell, we control bases and are now running regular patrols? On top of that fewer American soldiers are dying?
You’re making a pretty good case for staying. [/quote]
It’s not your fucking land, now is it? Don’t outstay your welcome.
WTF? The burden of proof ALWAYS lies with the one who advocates the use of violence. In this case, you!
Unless you can prove that your stay is doing anything else besides creating ever more terrorists, I’ll take the no American soldiers’ lives anytime. At least, it’s 100% certain.
I don’t have the shadow of a doubt.
Maybe not, but they are actively oppressing and occupying a people against international law.
Stop right there. For you to consider a nation as agressive it suffices for it to be on the other side.
And Mahmoud’s government released an official statement clarifying what he really meant by the mistranslated speech. I bet you never read it, now did you?
You’re just trying to argue here. I’m pretty sure you got my point. A bunch of people meet online and decide to blow something up. Everyone brings some cash to the pot and an expertise. They meet in their respective homes. A bomb blows up.
Why the hell would you believe staying in Iraq stands in the way of this happening?
Nonsense. Terrorist attacks around the world have steadily increased ever since you invaded Iraq. You may not hear about them, but they occur a lot more often now.
There are other relationships than unconditional support and occupation between countries.[/quote]
Right, like creating a power vacuum, I know.
Pretty quick with the links I don’t care about and didn’t ask for.
So prior to Vietnam countries routinely posted their civilian casualty numbers? I’d love to see the Nazi records for the number of civilians killed in the Bombing of London or for any nation they occupied, or the Allies in the Bombing of Dresden.
How about the number of innocent people the Soviets killed in Afghanistan, any documents there with the CCCP stamped at the top? Any official estimates from Iran or Iraq after the Iran-Iraq war? Or any colony the British or Dutch occupied?
PR isn’t the only reason body counts aren’t released and the only reason you think that way is because you’d like to link it to the earliest unpopular American war you can remember.
This is no longer the precautionary principle, it’s pacifism.
But okay, American troop deaths have dropped steadily since the beginning of the war, Iraqi deaths have, if anything, risen. Clearly, we are not the only targets. I’m not saying I’m against withdrawal.
U.S.S. Cole? Every embassy attacked in the ME back to Carter? That’s 100%?
You’ve seen the weapons? You’ve felt the warmth of purified fissile material? If I set a Geiger counter and a pH meter in front of you could you even tell which was which? Because there are plenty of people who can, and plenty of people who are in charge of them who are uncertain.
So we have Israel oppressing and occupying people against international law and we have Iran, threatening to annihilate Israel and oppressing people against international law.
Aggression can be established from impartiality. That’s the whole premise of the UN.
I’ve read it. It sounds like the same ass-covering and backpedaling you here from any government. Only it’s backpedaling from erasing a country from the pages of history.
Even as bungling and war-mongering as Bush is touted as being, even he managed not to say erase Iraq from the pages of history and force Congress and/or the White House to say, “Er… He meant the Iraqi regime.”
[quote]Everyone brings some cash to the pot and an expertise. They meet in their respective homes.
Why the hell would you believe staying in Iraq stands in the way of this happening?[/quote]
You’re being pretty ridiculous yourself. How many homes respective homes would Al-Qaeda need to have? In terms of effectiveness, wouldn’t make the most sense to have consolidated operations in an environment conducive to your goals? Seriously, on-line bomb-making and soldier training?
Bomb-making is not hard, teaching is probably of moderate difficulty. Teaching bomb-making to large numbers of people covertly is exceedingly difficult.
So they are attacking other places around the world because of the US’s occupation of Iraq? Are you asserting they’re recruiting in Iraq to commit terrorist acts against nations uninvolved?
…
Nonsense. Terrorist attacks around the world have steadily increased ever since you invaded Iraq. You may not hear about them, but they occur a lot more often now.
So they are attacking other places around the world because of the US’s occupation of Iraq? Are you asserting they’re recruiting in Iraq to commit terrorist acts against nations uninvolved?
[/quote]
Of course. Because America liberated Iraq every non-Muslim (and most other Muslims) are now legitimate targets world-wide.
There are other relationships than unconditional support and occupation between countries.
Right, like creating a power vacuum, I know.[/quote]
“Creating a vacuum” isn’t the relationship. It’s the consequence of interfering with others people’s business.
That you’re willing to compare the US to the Nazis or the Soviets is telling.
As opposed to ruthless belligerence.
Not as steady as they’d have you believe. Take a look at the attached image.
You can’t associate those to the situation you created in Iraq. I don’t actually see why you’d bring them up.
But since we’re on it, maybe if you didn’t “sparkle” your military so much around the ME, they won’t get attacked. If you park my car in the garage of an unfriendly person, don’t be surprised if it gets scratched!
I happen to know a certain Moroccan Israeli who worked in one famous reactor site. I’ll take his word, Olmert’s Freudian slip and the international consensus over your skepticism any day.
Sure.
They are indeed uncertain, but they can tell you their opinion with a very high degree of confidence. In this case, there is consensus among the experts.
Iran is oppressing its own people. Israel is oppressing others. This is a huge difference.
Prominent linguists have weighed on the issue and revealed that the translation was not appropriate. No need to rehash that bit again.
The difference being that Bush didn’t wasn’t a say-er but a do-er.
7/7 and 5/16 managed just fine doing it in homes.
You’d be amazed what a serie of tubes can achieve besides delivering pr0n.
I don’t see why you’d think a self-proclaimed decentralized organanisation would need to centralize its activities. If you can teach one, there’s no stopping that one from spreading the expertise to many others exponentially, now is there?
All attacked countries were involved. The ones that participated in the invasion got their asses kicked. The Arab ones that remained complacent were harshly reprimanded and the ones that abstained from voting on a resolution was attacked. But I got your point…
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Because America liberated Iraq
Have you no shame?
The fact that you think otherwise speaks volumes about you.
You would rather a murderous dictator be in charge rather than a democracy just because America is involved.[/quote]
True, whether or not you think America should be there you have to acknowledge that Saddam was particularly brutal and did hold the country hostage. Personally, assholeness wasn’t a good enough reason to take him out. We should have done that the first time around. It sure would have been easier in 1991. But not acknowledging that is simply not honest.
“Creating a vacuum” isn’t the relationship. It’s the consequence of interfering with others people’s business.[/quote]
So, in relation to Iraq, we wouldn’t create a power vacuum?
I compared us to the British, the Dutch, Iran, Iraq, and whomever you care to label as “the Allies” as well and, arguably, all of them to one another. You chose the Nazis and the Soviets specifically.
As long as we’re no longer confused about the precautionary principle and pacifism, sure.
As I said, nothing clear enough to extrapolate to a date where no American soldiers are dying with any sort of confidence, but the data I’m working off of shows a distinct downward trend:
As I said to LIFTICVS, unless you can prove Bush knew there weren’t terrorists in Iraq and said to hell with it we’re going anyway, it’s not lying or perjury. Given that we are now in Iraq, perjury or no, it has been established that Saddam’s association with terrorism was specious. All of the above is largely irrelevant to the question(s) is “Are Americans and/or the US military safer occupying Iraq, unconditionally retreating, or conditionally retreating?” “Are Iraqis and/or the Iraqi military/gov’t safer with the US occupying Iraq, unconditionally retreating, or conditionally retreating?”
[quote]I happen to know a certain Moroccan Israeli who worked in one famous reactor site. I’ll take his word, Olmert’s Freudian slip and the international consensus over your skepticism any day.
They are indeed uncertain, but they can tell you their opinion with a very high degree of confidence. In this case, there is consensus among the experts.[/quote]
Shit! That damned science by consensus of opinion and anecdote again. I keep forgetting that when David Blaine convinces everyone that something disappeared, it actually did disappear.
Umm… okay.
As I said last time, it’s a fascinating exploration of the subtle linguistic difference between “wiped off the map” and “erased from the pages of history.”
Knowing what I know now, I’d prefer in order;
Bush Sr. executing Saddam after the invasion of Kuwait.
Bush changing Iraqi regimes and Iran not erasing Isreal any day of the week.
Bush not changing Iraqi regimes and Iran not erasing Isreal any day of the week.
Bush changing Iraqi regimes and Iran erasing Isreal any day of the week.
Bush not changing Iraqi regimes and Iran erasing Isreal any day of the week.
At this juncture, only 2 and 4 are possible.
Yes, there is. Otherwise they would all be masters of all military arts and wouldn’t get caught trying to light their shoes on fire in an airplane, the WTC wouldn’t have survived the first bombing, and the 9/11 hijackers wouldn’t all have been taking flight classes (the simulators would be enough) and hopping back and forth between the ME and the US.
Bombs and bomb-making are not tolerant of operator variability and capricious application, two things that distance learning propagates relative to hands-on instruction. Al-qaeda operates all over the world in a diffuse organization but to act like they can’t, won’t, or haven’t centralize(d) is folly.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
True, whether or not you think America should be there you have to acknowledge that Saddam was particularly brutal and did hold the country hostage. Personally, assholeness wasn’t a good enough reason to take him out. We should have done that the first time around. It sure would have been easier in 1991. But not acknowledging that is simply not honest. [/quote]
Everybody’s grateful that the bastard is out of the picture, but here where I disagree with Zap’s statement: Was it worth the hundreds of thousands of dead bodies, the millions displaced and the chaos it created in Iraq?
The aim wasn’t to get him toppled. That could have been achieved by other means given all the opposition from the majority of Iraqis he was up against. He could also have been taken out by a CIA operative or similar. Make no mistake! The US had no interest in a democratic Iraq that will naturally ally itself with Iran. Bush wanted troops on the ground so he could maintain strategic control of the region, and accessorily, get some juicy contracts to his US oil corporations.
That is why I believe Zap’s remark was outrageous. I mean, try telling that to people outside the US and you’ll see what I mean. Everywhere you go, you’ll be lynched for making such a remark. Yes, you got rid of Saddam. Nobody’s arguing the good side, but speaking of “liberation” in the grand scheme of things is utterly disingenuous.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
So, in relation to Iraq, we wouldn’t create a power vacuum? [/quote]
Ok, you lost track of the thread. It started with me saying that there is a middle ground between an unconditional supporter and a sworn enemy. Then you brought vacuum…
Ah, drop it.
True. But I’m just sick of posters here pointing fingers and saying that Soviets and Nazis were worse. Duh! Of course they were. But that’s never an argument that can be accepted by a rational person.
That was fun.
[quote]As I said, nothing clear enough to extrapolate to a date where no American soldiers are dying with any sort of confidence, but the data I’m working off of shows a distinct downward trend:
How about the 1st quarter of this year being the deadliest since the invasion? We can’t extrapolate, but it sure looks extremely bad to me.
I don’t really care much for those kinds of details. Of course, nobody can prove that, but I didn’t see you ask that to Bush when he wanted to invade. The case was weak and we all know it.
Meanwhile, many many people died…
You blow up a country based on “specious”? Unbelievable.
What is certain is that you shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Hence, the burden of proof lies on the ones who want to stay.
I wasn’t expecting such a bad analogy from you. One is a bloody expert in illusions, whereas the ones I refered to are experts in nukes. Feel the difference?
[quote]Knowing what I know now, I’d prefer in order;
Bush Sr. executing Saddam after the invasion of Kuwait.
Bush changing Iraqi regimes and Iran not erasing Isreal any day of the week.
Bush not changing Iraqi regimes and Iran not erasing Isreal any day of the week.
Bush changing Iraqi regimes and Iran erasing Isreal any day of the week.
Bush not changing Iraqi regimes and Iran erasing Isreal any day of the week.
At this juncture, only 2 and 4 are possible.[/quote]
You gotta be kidding me! Iran couldn’t erase a gambling debt if it tried. Israel could take down a dozen countries like Iran.
We obviously disagree on the definition of centralization. For me is a guru preaching hate from home is threat enough, whereas you think that they need control of a whole country to foster.